After a series of nine months on Prozac, she was finally off the medication but after the eighth month of no drugs she requested to be put back on. The dilemma here brought forth a professional issue that questioned the proper role of the doctor. Firstly, a careful analysis of the patient must be done. During and following analysis, the illness must be defined meaning to see how it affects the mind. The doctor should be understand the extent of suffering which would be most effective in assigning the appropriate treatment. All of these steps must be carried out while maintaining duty to respect confidentiality of the patient.
The panoply of social issues addressed the concept of the continuity of human selves. Once Tess was placed on imipramine she said, “I am better”… “I am myself again”(pp 207). This statement indicated a pattern of behavior and sense of identity. Doctor’s are trained to doubt patients who are too stoical in order to keep them from going into remission and shortly after, she started reveal signs of depression once more.
This is where his decision came in to play to prescribe Prozac but with the goal in mind to restore her to her preceding state. The months post Prozac previously discussed brought Tess to say “I am not myself” once she started to feel a difference in her behavior after the transformative occurrence seemed to slow down. This statement confirms that it is now emotional dis-ease and not a disease. At what point could we say that Tess was actually “herself” for return throughout this makeover?
In a philosophical aspect we have to start to question how ethical cosmetic psychopharmacology is although it is efficient. This medication changes a number of characteristics about a person similar to how extreme plastic surgery could alter everything. Kramer began to wonder the possibility of how psychopharmaceuticals could alter Tess’ progressive social beliefs. This modifying drug made Kramer also question the extent of internal responsibility we take for our own lives. The distinction between the between the drug and our own doing helps us to find meaning in our own errors. A new concept is emerged with mood-altering agents that medicine now transforms and does not heal.
The boundary of licit and illicit drug use should be in high inquiry after the shift in prescription drugs has been normalized. Afterall, amphetamine, cocaine, and alcohol are all used for comparable reasons like these legal performance enhancers. These illicit drugs abused on the street are for the purpose of making people feel normal. Cocaine which is a stimulant gives a boost to people’s confidence and their energy.
The drug allows them to feel socially secure and socially attractive. Alcohol is known by many as liquid courage which gives users a confidence they do not have when sober. Ask these leisure drugs become more socially accepted we should be asking ourselves whether “whether street-drug abusers are self-medication unrecognized illness and whether prescribed-drug users are, with their doctors’ permission, stimulating and calming themselves in quite similar ways.”
My concluding thoughts believe that in the upcoming years personality altering drugs will become more common and socially accepted in society. All individuals from children to elders will be taking psychopharmaceuticals to improve in complex social and work situations for conventional reasons.
Medical determinants will soon have to be reconsidered on the basis of treatment versus enhancements and ordinary versus ordinary care. Society’s previous ignorance on the influence of biology on personality needs to be reviewed. The intellectual success and social capabilities of everyday persons can be largely attributed to drugs. Drug responses are something that should be studied more closely to increase our awareness of ourselves as individuals. Over time patients will self report more and doctors will do less work by being there for mere confirmation.
